What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339722 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 805, 139C Greys Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5339722?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339722?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12456967-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339722 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 805, 139C Greys Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5339722?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339722?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12456967-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 805, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339722 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Eder represented the applicant and the tenant appeared with his two support persons all by teleconference.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

The background in this case is that the tenant was the sole occupant of a one bedroom apartment in a multi-level housing complex.

The evidence, including video footage, is of an assault that took place between the tenant and another resident on the 18 July 2025. Whilst the tenant does not accept that he was shown the footage the evidence shows on the balance of probabilities that he was shown the video, and this is confirmed by an email submitted in evidence.

The tenant stated that he had previously apologised to the ‘people’ he ‘had assaulted’ in other incidents, and he was engaged in counselling and a men’s group. He has also submitted correspondence in support of his need to remain in the accommodation.

The evidence is that the tenant has breached his obligations previously on four other occasions although the tenant disputed some of the allegations and this has not led to the termination application today.

Whilst the tenant states he did not accept some of the version of events in relation to previous incidents, the reality is, that there was one assault that has not been denied and is the reason for this application to terminate. There was no denial of the assault that took place, and, on the evidence, it was a serious assault. The lack of police prosecution is not relevant given the video footage and the fact that he did not deny the assault.

Whilst the tenant claims that he was defending his property the assault occurred in the hallway. The video showed the tenant punching another in the face and the victim falling to the ground and remained there for a duration of time. The tenant does not deny this.

The tenant claims that the other person should not have been there and was intoxicated so he felt threatened this is no excuse to render such behaviour.

I find that the tenant has breached his obligations.

The breach is not capable of remedy. The assault has occurred.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy particularly with the four other concerning incidents three of which involved aggressive type behaviour. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is not appropriate to use my discretion under Section 55(2) of the Act, being to refuse to terminate given the evidence in this case.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 805, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 5pm on Thursday 25 th September 2025

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Eder represented the applicant and the tenant appeared with his two support persons all by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The background in this case is that the tenant was the sole occupant of a one bedroom apartment in a multi-level housing complex.
The evidence, including video footage, is of an assault that took place between the tenant and another resident on the 18 July 2025. Whilst the tenant does not accept that he was shown the footage the evidence shows on the balance of probabilities that he was shown the video, and this is confirmed by an email submitted in evidence.
The tenant stated that he had previously apologised to the ‘people’ he ‘had assaulted’ in other incidents, and he was engaged in counselling and a men’s group. He has also submitted correspondence in support of his need to remain in the accommodation.
The evidence is that the tenant has breached his obligations previously on four other occasions although the tenant disputed some of the allegations and this has not led to the termination application today.
Whilst the tenant states he did not accept some of the version of events in relation to previous incidents, the reality is, that there was one assault that has not been denied and is the reason for this application to terminate. There was no denial of the assault that took place, and, on the evidence, it was a serious assault. The lack of police prosecution is not relevant given the video footage and the fact that he did not deny the assault.
Whilst the tenant claims that he was defending his property the assault occurred in the hallway. The video showed the tenant punching another in the face and the victim falling to the ground and remained there for a duration of time. The tenant does not deny this.
The tenant claims that the other person should not have been there and was intoxicated so he felt threatened this is no excuse to render such behaviour.
I find that the tenant has breached his obligations.
The breach is not capable of remedy. The assault has occurred.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy particularly with the four other concerning incidents three of which involved aggressive type behaviour. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is not appropriate to use my discretion under Section 55(2) of the Act, being to refuse to terminate given the evidence in this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339722 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 805, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339722 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 805, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions